Skip to content


Doraisingam Alias Gouri Vallabha thevar Vs. Vyravan Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in19Ind.Cas.219; (1913)24MLJ404
AppellantDoraisingam Alias Gouri Vallabha thevar
RespondentVyravan Chettiar
Excerpt:
- - order xxxix rule 7 in my opinion does not apply as this is clearly not an order for the detention or preservation of any property......a lac and odd rupees claimed by the defendants adversely to each other, and they were on such payment discharged from all liability to the defendants and discharged from the suit. the zamindar, the 7th defendant was made the plaintiff in: their stead. the subordinate judge has passed an order allowing the 2nd defendant to draw the amount deposited on his furnishing security for the restitution of the amount with interest at 6 per cent, in case the plaintiff gets a decree in his favor. the plaintiff contends that the order was passed without jurisdiction. order xxxix rule 7 in my opinion does not apply as this is clearly not an order for the detention or preservation of any property. it is rather an investment carrying interest. i have been referred to no other provision in the civil.....
Judgment:

Sankaran Nair, J.

1. An interpleader suit was filed by the lessees of Sivaganga against the Zamindar of Sivaganga, the 7th Defendant and Vyravan Chettiar the 2nd Defendant and certain others. The lessees paid into Court a sum of money a lac and odd rupees claimed by the defendants adversely to each other, and they were on such payment discharged from all liability to the defendants and discharged from the suit. The Zamindar, the 7th Defendant was made the plaintiff in: their stead. The Subordinate Judge has passed an order allowing the 2nd defendant to draw the amount deposited on his furnishing security for the restitution of the amount with interest at 6 per cent, in case the plaintiff gets a decree in his favor. The plaintiff contends that the order was passed without jurisdiction. Order XXXIX Rule 7 in my opinion does not apply as this is clearly not an order for the detention or preservation of any property. It is rather an investment carrying interest. I have been referred to no other provision in the Civil Procedure Code to justify the order. On principle such a procedure seems to be objectionable. The successful party is entitled to payment by the court to whom the money had been paid by the original plaintiff for payment to him. He should not be driven to take further proceedings to realize the money and run further risks. Unless therefore both the parties agree the amount should be kept under the control of the court available for payment at any time. Whether the party who succeeds will be entitled to interest or damages from the other party is a question unnecessary for roe to decide. I am tharefore constrained to hold that the order is one passed without jurisdiction, and I accordingly set it aside with costs in this and in the Lower Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //